CA Assembly Bill 372 - Adoption Records

I don't have much experience reading Bills, but the way I read this one it appears to state that a copy of the original birth certificate will be provided as long as the person requesting theirs is 18 or older, is adopted, and sends in a notarized written request to the court in which that person was adopted. This would be a good thing! Who do I contact and how do I go about it to support this bill?? I was born and adopted in Fresno County. I petitioned the court back in November, had to serve the county counsel, and still am waiting for some kind of a response. I would love to have a copy of my original birth certificate.

While on the surface, AB 372 appears to grant adoptees access to original birth records, I have the following issues with it: 1) The natural parents' names will still be redacted (removed) from the OBC, unless needed to establish a legal right. (d) The name and address of the natural parents shall be given to the petitioner or requester only if he or she can demonstrate that the name and address, or either of them, are necessary to assist him or her in establishing a legal right. In all other cases, that information shall be redacted from all records and information provided, including a copy of an original record of birth. Though in my own experience, the names (and therefore the addresses) are/were needed to establish the legal right to establish identity for mutual registry against a biological sibling in another state (NY), for the majority of adoptees, the natural parents names would still be removed from the "original birth certificate", which no longer makes it original, but censored. 2) The process for obtaining an OBC still has the adoptee wading through the courts, instead of CA Vital Records. As has been adoptees' experience, this can be a time consuming process. As a comparison: in the time timeframe of Nov-Feb, I have submitted three requests to CA Vital Records, and received responces back. (I have three listings in the CA Birth Index). Meanwhile, I have already waited one month from Unified Family Courts receipt of my petition, to the judge's signature, granting breaking the seal on my adoption records, and am presently waiting on Family Court to obtain the records, who when last contacted, mentioned a delay on account of updating records from microfiche to computers. Instead of allowing access to OBC through CA Vital Records, the proposed amendment to Section 102704 still keeps access to OBC through the courts, and therefore still allows a judge to deny and/or filter the adoption records sought. 3) Looking at California's neighboring state of Oregon, Ballot Measure 58 (1998), contained much simpler language: Upon receipt of a written application to the state registrar, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the state of Oregon shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the state registrar, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 432.120 and 432.146. Contains no exceptions. from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_58_(1998)"]wikipekia.org[/URL] When comparing Oregon's legislation to assembly bill 372, I again reach the conclusion that AB 372 does little for adoptees in obtaining original birth certificates.

For such a liberal state, you would think that California would be on the band-wagon of states unsealing records. It just doesn't make sense.

After reading the amended (Mar 26, 2009) version of [URL="http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_372_bill_20090326_amended_asm_v98.pdf"]California Assembly Bill 372[/URL], it would appear that it may be a bill worth passing. The addition of the following section does the most for CA adoptees in search of OBC: 102704. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, Section 102705, upon receipt of a written application from an adopted person who is 25 years of age or older and who was born in this state, the State Registrar shall issue a certified information-only copy of the adopted persons original and unamended birth certificate if that record is in the custody of the State Registrar. The procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods shall be identical to those imposed for that service upon residents of this state who were not adopted. There's two minor issues I still have however: California offers two types of vital records - [URL="http://ww2.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/AthorizedCopyvsInformationalCopy.aspx"]Authorized Copy and Informational Copy[/URL]. As an Informational Copy may not be used to establish identity, I am curious if another state would recognize the document for mutual registry. (i.e. my own situation in attempting to register in New York State) Secondly, why the age of 25? Last I checked, the age of majority starts at 18 in California (drinking age notwithstanding). Still creates a bit of a nanny state in my book - you can drive, vote, marry, smoke, serve your country, gamble, and drink, but no, sorry, you can't obtain your original birth certificate for another 4-7 years? Though I can imagine the arguement of "to protect the privacy of the parents", to my recollection privacy rights of this nature were secured for abortion (Roe vs. Wade), not adoption. But I digress.

*** UPDATE *** On 21 Apr 2009, California Assembly Bill 372 was amended again. The results are not pretty. Full text available [URL="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_372&sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update"]here[/URL]. As it presently reads, birth parents would hold veto power on whether an adoptee has access to his or her orginal birth certificate. Additionally, the bill adds a six month waiting period, when said adoptee requests the OBC. This, again, after attaining the age of 25. This bill would set an extremely bad precedence. To my knowledge, adoptees have been denied by the State, access to the OBC. To grant a new legal right to birth parents to deny another's right (their children's right) does far worse than accept the arguement that birth parents had any right or priveledge to privacy. Additionally, this bill would place a burden on the State Registrar, in having to mail out notifications to birth parents upon requests from adoptees for their OBC, not to mention hiring the person to track the requests, and the results of the mailings. Just who's job does this bill create?